As Mangetout pointed out, context matters. Cyclists or environmentslist donning smog masks are one thing. But a self-labeled group of Anarchists who march to create anarchy and OFTEN commit acts of violence in their efforts is quite another.
About your indication that property being damaged is “insured”. Do you really think that matters? If I steal your car or throw a brick through your bedroom window is the crime less of a crime because you chose to be prudent and buy insurance. That’s ridiculous. Not to mention, that the more insurance companies have to pay out the more expensive insurance gets, and the fewer of us that will be able to afford it.
So, if I understand you, in your world, when these anarchists march and do violence to both person and property time and again, no biggie.
I wonder if you’d feel the same if your head got split open by one of these cowards or if the small business you were building had it’s windows broken and equipment damaged. And maybe even an employee injured in the process. Oh that’s tight, I forgot, INSURANCE.
No, you construct a straw target of my position. It is not that it is no biggie - I would see them prosecuted under the full force of the law just as you would. But removing some liberty or other from us all is a cure which is worse than the disease.
So you not being able to shroud yourself in black and wear a mask as part of a group of protestors who have demonstrated a high likelihood that violence will be part of their “march” is WORSE than people beiing inured and property being destroyed? Is that your position?
If it is, am I to assume that you would be then be in favor of a MASSIVE police presence lurking to be able to stop the violence and mayhem after it starts? Or is your attitude more “eh, if we catch them we catch them. If not, not.”
Which leads to your point about the property being insured. You never answered my question. Here it is again:
Wearing black should not be illegal. Wearing masks should not be illegal. Committing violence and destroying property should be illegal. Criminalising the first two is worse than that violence and property destruction which such criminalisation would prevent, which is almost none at all. This is my position.
If criminalistion of masks made such violence disappear, I would welcome it. It won’t. I would, instead, urge a cleverer approach by the police, by kitting plain clothes officers out in masks themselves (so they could not be identified as outsiders) and infiltrating these groups pre-protest. Heck, have them put a tracking device on everyone else wearing a mask.
This is my attitude to any crime given the principle of innocence until proven guilt which I regard so highly.
No. I’m not sure why you picked on that word in my response out of all of them in the first place, but I’ll retract it if necessary.
I remember a similiar thread regarding mask wearing and the KKK. I don’t recall so many people coming to the defense of the KKK’s right to march with their mask on.
In our culture the tradition of wearing masks or disguises is typically done in an effort to conceal your identity for sinister purposes. Even the Lone Ranger ran into accusations of being an outlaw because of his mask. The KKK masked their faces to avoid identification and I suspect the anarchs and those at the Boston Tea Party disguise themselves for the same reason.
Still, I think if people want to march with masks they should be free to do so.
No one is suggesting making wearing black illegal or masks. But wearing masks as a part of a crowd that has been known to assemble in order to create anarchy, which in their minds, means commiting acts of viloence and vandalism.
I like it. Not much of a civil libertarian position, but I like it.
This has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. We’re talking about seeing people in the act of committing crime. The problem is that BECAUSE of their tactic to dress in black and be masked and act as a mob it hinders being able to even arrest the right person, a s you profess to advocate.
Marc,
Based on what else you say in your post I’m surprised that you come to that conclusion. What’s your rationale? Is it that restricting any liberties is just off the table on civil libertarian grounds?
When it comes to speech I tend to err on the side of caution. Sure, I might not like anarchs wearing masks but I do think that a mask can be a legitimate expression of speech. For example I once observed an anti-abortion protest with some dude dressed as Death complete with a fake scyth and a skull mask. Someone could wear a Bush mask along with prisoners striped black & white clothing to denote that he believes Bush to be a war criminal. I’m sure others more creative could think of other examples. I’m fairly liberal when it comes to free speech. I think cross and flag burning, so long as you get a permit for and restrict it to designated areas, should be protected speech.
Of course if I see a person on my property wearing a mask outside of Halloween or hunting season I’m going to assume the worse.
Marc
Suppose a group of 500 klansmen, all in sheets and hoods, goes rampaging through a black neighbourhood. They smash windows, start fires, beat up people in the street. The police break up the riot and arrest everyone. But afterwards, every klansmen says, “I didn’t break any laws. I was just peacefully marching when some other guys started doing all that bad stuff. It’s just that rogue element that gives all the rest of us klansmen a bad name.”
So what do you do? You can’t specifically link any one individual to a specific crime. Do you enact laws making it illegal to be part of a crowd doing this kind of thing? Or do you just accept it as part of the price of the right to assemble?
Aah, the days of my youth - one popular graffito in the Struggle for the Liberation of Azania from Apartheid was “the Purple shall Govern”, after protestors were sprayed with indelible purple dye by watercannons.
I don’t think you’ve read my posts carefully. No one is suggesting banning masks across the board. I’m talking about masks in a group that has assembled many times before in order to do violence and vandalism.
Please digest that before you start typing. Not all masks just Masks + Mob + Group With A History of Violence.
Now if you choose to process the entire proposition, I’d love to hear your reesponse.
Anyone else read The Barbie Murders by John Varley? It’s a science fiction/mystery about a religious cult that has all its members surgically altered so everybody looks identical. One of the cult members is a serial killer who’s murdering other members of the cult. A police detective is trying to figure out how to find the killer when every suspect looks the same.
That’s called guilt by association. You can’t arrest people for past crimes that somebody else committed. The KKK has committed violent crimes in the past. Does that mean anyone in a Klan robe should be arrested on the spot? What difference would the masks make anyway? If this “mob” shows up without masks, is everything good?
If protestors commit any violent acts, then arrest them for that. If they don’t, then don’t. I find your whole point kind of silly. You might as well say it should be illegal for bank robbers to wear masks because then it’s hard for the cops to find them. That’s the bloody point. People who commit violent crimes try to disguise themselves so they won’t get caught. That doesn’t mean that any person who wears a disguise is going to commit a crime. Keep your eye on the ball. It’s the violence that matters, not the masks. No violence, no foul.
I may or may not know something about the black blocs. The people the OP is talking about. I identify as an left-anarchist. The main reason they mask is because they are subject to harassment if they don’t, whether they engage in acts against corporates or not. Police in many nations, including this one, are notoriously unsympathetic to views that would see their demise. Something about job protection.
Furthermore, most anarchists will NOT act against ‘mom and pop’ stores, but only against corporations. I, personally, see nothing wrong with destroying property owned by the likes of Nike. YMMV.
I think that the hostility you feel from police – and probably most of society – has less to do with “something about job protection” and more to do with “I, personally, see nothing wrong with destroying property owned by the likes of Nike.”
I’m not going to argue against free speech but if someone surprises me wearing a mask they risk a negative reaction. Mardi Gra is an event designed around costumes. That is different than locations like a bank, or a subway. It is also different than a situation that appears to be a riot. It all depends on the situation.
In my city we had a man walk into a commission meeting wearing a ninja outfit. I didn’t witness this and don’t know if he identified himself but he was arrested and subsequently sued the city to the tune of $100.000. I have nothing against eccentric nutjobs but if he had burst into the meeting like that, without being identified, I would assume he meant to do something harmful. I’m adding my own qualifier (burst in, unidentified) to the situation as an example of how this could endanger a person wearing a mask. If I feel threatened by a masked individual I will react accordingly.
Another example. I was at a protest rally that brought out the usual level of people yelling incoherent babble. One of the anarchists was obviously just some kid wearing a ninja hood. He didn’t appear to be anything other than that and was treated as such.
Again, I’m not against free speech but there are laws that require people to identify themselves if asked by a police officer. That, IMO, is how situations such as the G8 riots should be handled. If a masked person cannot identify him/herself then I would prefer they be removed and detained from such situations. It is not the mask that is illegal, it is the inability to identify someone who is confrontational.
No, guilt by association is when your friend is known to be a thief and people think you are also a thief because you hang around with him. What I’m talking about is suspicion based on your ACTIONs. If your friend has been known to break into cars and you are found with a “Slim Jim” (used to unlock car doors) or three hundred car keys in your trunk. the police are safe to assume that you might be guilty, of similar crimes, whether or not you have acted in cahoots with him.
The police are allowed and expected to use past patterns to prevent future crimes. If you: 1) choose to attend a type of rally that has often turned violent, and 2) don the attire that the violent people have worn when they turned violent, do you suggest that the police be able to use that valuable information in ANY way? If they can’t use it to prevent you from marching, would you then be in favor of having a MASSIVE police presence in place so they can act IF things turn violent? Or should they just allow those with violent intentions to take steps that virtually guarantee they can break the laws with impunity?
To your question about the mob showing up without masks, it might or might not be good, but it would be better. When people cannot act with anonymity they are less likely to break the law. And if they do, we increase the chance of being able to hold the specific individuals accountable.
What kind of harrassment is that? I’m going to call BS on this. From what I’ve seen of the protests of your brethern on the news and seen FIRST HAND in San Francisco, the police bend over backwards to accommodate such protests. When the protest starts to exhibit the beginnings of violent behavior against them and the society they are paid and sworn to protect, should they not respond? You seem to think your right to march as a form of protest has no bounds.
But I think this is a waste of time. Not only do geniuses like the ones you identify with, in fact, do damage to “mom and pop” stores (most recently in SF), it doesn’t really matter, destroying property that doesn’t belong to you is bothe legally and morally wrong.
PLease, PLEASE explain to me your statement: “I, personally, see nothing wrong with destroying property owned by the likes of Nike.”
In this particular case, my mileage is quite different. I agree that corporations do cause some serious problems in this country. But these problems are not going to be solved by a bunch of rioters running around breaking windows.
Destroying property cannot be rationalized away as a protest just because it is done to a big business. People rely on jobs whether it’s with a large company or not. The people engaging in this kind of activity should expect to be treated in kind.